Forum:AG's speech
THIS IS RESOLVED. THE C.A.P. IS IN THE MAKING -- Sheepman!Wheeeeeee! 19:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC) This is a speech by AG (he's not unbanned, this is Sheepman posting for him). SUMMARY THERE IS PROPABLY A CRISIS COMING. WE NEEDZ PLANZ! VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT NEED A C.A.P. (CRISIS ACTION PLANZ). WE ARE NOT TRYING TO SEND THE WIKI INTO PANIC, WE JUST SHOULD MAKE A PLAN AND USE IT SHOULD A CRISIS COME. P.S. This is the intended meaning, however you may take it. Big Speech I am not here to fight you. I am not here to trap you. I am not even here to try to convince you of my innocence. I am here to warn you. There is a terrible threat coming, a threat we have created ourselves. It is a Crisis, and one unlike any we have seen before. I have lived through every Crisis ever to stalk the face of any Wiki, and I know the signs: every Crisis was preceded by a fight between two Users, each of which gathered followers to his(or her) cause. Think back, we have all seen Crises. You will see, if you do, that I am right. And the signs are chilling. Communications breakdowns, imprisonment without trial, ultimatums: you expect to hear of such things in a newspaper report on a distant war, not the recent changes log! And so I ask you, to set down your prejudices, your opinions, your side in this, a digital battle. What I am proposing is radical, true, but I cannot see any other option: a total freezing of all community activity. No Court House, no BOB, no Forums, only talk. We need your help, we need your thoughts, we need your best ideas, we need them all in our quest for a solution. We will need strict discipline: anyone caught being objective will have to be punished severely. We will need everyone, from both sides, to produce ideas, to produce methods, to produce resolutions. I have, of course, examined the other courses of action, and I shall set them out below, but I cannot find any really usable. If you can, please tell us, but if you can't then we must follow this course. You may not trust me, but do you trust yourself? Agentgenius (posting done by Sheepman) The Nerd Exposes The Fancy-Dancy Speech I'm not discounting this speech because AG's banned, but because I think it's a load of baloney, spiced up with extra-fancy words and motivating phrases. I'll try to convince everyone of that for now. This is AG's speech, simplified: First of all, please refrain from saying that the end of the wiki is coming and that you are right, and actually ''PROVE YOURSELF RIGHT! We need proof for your assertion! I will not believe you until you have shown me substantial and logically sound proof that the wiki is about to end! Second, exactly why are you right, if you even are right? Did you get a degree in Wikian Extrapolation? Proof, please! Furthermore, even if you are right and a Crisis is coming, how do you know that the Crisis coming is of such a magnitude that it will blow our wiki to smithereens? People, COME ON! Would any of you believe something without justifiable proof? Finally, why should we drop everything and form a program? Did America destroy government, society, and everything that its culture holds dear just for the sake of winning the War Against Terror? The main purpose of this wiki is to churn out articles, not to prevent Crises. If we were to try to form a program, we should at least preserve our current status (i.e., peace and non-anarchy) while forming a secondary program to try to prevent crises. This is classic propaganda. You try to stir up panic by advertising the not-so-far-as-you-thought-it-was end of the world, then say it is possible to prevent it from happening by obliterating society and government, then gathering into a program when there is actually no proof that the world will end quite soon! ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Nerd Quibbles On...']]) View this template 13:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Ideas #Ban all people on one side. Unusable. There are two problems: ##How do we decide which side to ban? ##What about those who are only partly on one side? #Declare amnesty for both sides. Unusable. There are two problems: ##What about those who have committed serious crimes? ##Amnesty is immaterial. Inevitably, someone is going to bring up these crimes someday, even if they have been pardoned. Trust me, I know full well that people cannot leave a past misdeed alone, even if you have been proved innocent, let alone pardoned. It's just human nature. #Flip a coin. Let the winning side pick their punishment for the losing side. Unusable. There are three problems: ##How do we rule out cheating? ##What about disagreements within the winning party? ##Who would consent to be ruled by chance? ##How do we rule out cheating? The Nerd Refutes The Ideas Section Note: Italics are Agentgenius, and no formatting is ME! *''Ban all people on one side.'' Excusem-moi? By what sides do you mean? Unusable. There are two problems: *''How do we decide which side to ban?'' (See my previous comment.) *''What about those who are only partly on one side?'' (What sides? And are there any people that are partly on one side?) *''Declare amnesty for both sides.'' (Amnesty means to declare a criminal innocent. All records of the crime are forgotten.) Unusable. There are two problems: *''What about those who have committed serious crimes?'' (I agree.) *''Amnesty is immaterial. Inevitably, someone is going to bring up these crimes someday, even if they have been pardoned. Trust me, I know full well that people cannot leave a past misdeed alone, even if you have been proved innocent, let alone pardoned. It's just human nature.'' (Why should we trust you? And if anyone brings up the crime, they shouldn't nag, because that has a negative effect on the felon-turned-innocent. The COC says that we are not here to make people feel bad. Furthermore, if a user feels he/she should quit due to past misdeeds, they can by all means.) #''Flip a coin. Let the winning side pick their punishment for the losing side.'' (This is the worst idea I've ever heard. One: you can't flip a coin over the Internet. Two: this gives 50-50 chance of one side winning, and justice, moral rules, and the COC have nothing to do with it. Three: even if the winning side is the just one, they may get carried away and declare an unjust punishment.) -Explorer Note before you vote: This is just a suggestion of the ways that we should end this stupid argument. So If you put your name under "Coverts" you say: "Stop the fights! We should not kill each other over this!" But if you vote "Objectors" You either say "Look guys, there is no way to end this fairly, so just forget it" or "MWHA HA HA! I HATE AG!" (I hope you mean the first one if you do vote that). So consider your options. -- Sheepman!Wheeeeeee! 14:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Note to everyone who votes: If you put your name under Converts, you could also be saying, "I'm AG's #1 fan!" If you put your name under Objectors, you could also be saying, "Why the drastic measures?" ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Nerd Quibbles On...']]) View this template 14:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Note to Sheepman: You are committing a fallacy and making it sound like we are being just when we become converts and are being unjust and lazy when we become objectors. There are obviously more options than the ones you described. ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Nerd Quibbles On...']]) View this template 14:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC) I am well aware of the options. You can pick any option to vote for. Both have pros and cons. I already added the bit about options. And what happned to no fancy words. -- Sheepman!Wheeeeeee! 15:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC) However, you are trying to sway users to your side. Ergo, you're using propaganda. Furthermore, I do not see any other options anywhere. You're saying that if we object, we're either lazy or hate AG. ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Nerd Quibbles On...']]) View this template 15:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Converts #Agentgenius #Sheepman Objectors #Explorer. Totally, dudes. Footnote Note: Don't discount this just cause he's banned. He is right you know. One more crisis might finish us off. -- Sheepman!Wheeeeeee! 10:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC) The Nerd Refutes the Footnote Why is Agentgenius right? And you said "might." That means "may." Ergo, even if we have another crisis, it only has a chance of finishing us off, not a 100% chance. And since you have virtually no proof this Crisis will finish us off, I find it very hard for someone to believe in your opinion. ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Nerd Quibbles On...']]) View this template 14:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Bigger nerd counters What AG is trying to say is that basically, soon enough someone willl say something to someone else. That someone else will be offended and start a wiki-war (trust me, they suck). Everyone will take a side and it will get big. Ag is not saying "OMG! THE WIKI IS ENDING STOP EVERYTHING BEFORE WE ALL PERSIH HORRIBLY!!!! ZOMG!" He is saying: "look guys, soon enough this argument of ours propably will turn very nasty. We need to stop it in one way or another. We all hate conflicts like these, yes? So, who wants to find a fair way to end it, or who wants to keep this up till we all hate each others guts?" -- Sheepman!Wheeeeeee! 14:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC) The Nerd's Response If you are right, then we should at least preserve our current status (i.e., peace and non-panic), and form said Anti-Crisis Program (hey, the letters spell out ACP!) in such a way that it does not interfere with our current status. Agreed? (It;s the only point of AG's speech I agree with.) ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Nerd Quibbles On...']]) View this template 14:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC) I agree. We need a plan should this "end of the world" crisis come. But that is no reason to panic. AND BEFORE YOU EVEN THINK IT, THERE IS MORE OPTIONS THEN MENTIONED HERE THES ARE A FEW IDEAS. -- Sheepman!Wheeeeeee! 14:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Okay...... shall we delete this forum before everyone else joins the party, overreacts, and starts a flame war and form aforementioned program? ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Nerd Quibbles On...']]) View this template 15:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC) The Nerd's Proposal We create an action plan and program to prevent crises, but do not drop politics, society, or anything else. Aforementioned action plan and program should not interfere with the current, peaceful status of the wiki. Agreed? ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Nerd Quibbles On...']]) View this template 15:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Ok. Me and AG agree. -- Sheepman!Wheeeeeee! 15:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC) :ABSOLUTELY! --† कछुए मशरूम! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! † :) :) DON'T YOU DARE QUIT BECAUSE OF WHAT I JUST TYPED!!!!!!!! † 16:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)